Have we devolved?

The average male is not a soldier, the average mongol was.

I also don't quite think that most American soldiers would win. That however is speculative.

 

I disagree, the American soldier is taught hand to hand combat and knife fighting. The American soldier is also more physically conditioned to fight on foot than the average Mongol horse rider (the car of its day, lazy ass mongols).

 

Yes, and they get sent into combat against people who a few donkeys and have starving children. O, and the occasional Taliban member.

The Mongols rode into bloodshed, close quarters combat; it's not really comparable. The modern day man is extremely weak. Some people nowaday have problem lifting their body weight, it's ridiculous. Some people can't even do chin ups, let alone pulls ups. Society has progressed away from the need of physical ableness, we don't need to lift heavy weights, we have cranes, we don't need to bang in nails, we have nail guns, we don't need to hunt our food anymore, we have supermarkets! A thousand years previous, life demanded physical activity and as a result the average man had more muscle. Currently, the only exercise people seem to get is is walking to the toilet.

It's a rather simple concept. More workload on muscle = more muscle. Less workload on muscle = less muscle. Modern society requires less workload = less muscle. Previous society required more workload = more muscle. Muscle determines how physically able you are, to a point.

 

Yeah I am sure all of those villages the mongols raided were just all armed to the teeth and not full of peasants :laugh:. Americans do close quarters combat by doing building to building fighting other than bombing the whole town full of starving children. Mongols did not prefer close quarters combat as they were lightly armed (they would sustain a lot of casualties if they did). Anyway enough of this Mongol vs American stuff as it is becoming off topic.

Even with less workload in the modern era humans are still capable of achieving physical feats that would surpass that of previous generations.

 

The fact that it's no longer survival of the fittest means yes, we are devolving.

Think about it.

People used to have to be able to think in order to survive, but now a days, anyone anywhere can survive ( to an extent ).





There's a lot of debate that goes on regarding genetics and per-determined Iq's. People from colder climates, for example, had to work much harder and be a lot more innovative in order to survive, compared to someone who lived in a lush environment that didn't require as much thinking to survive.

Ie - Eskimos Vs Islanders. Their Iq's vary significantly.

 

Survival of the fittest doesn't really apply to our current civilization, as people who are more fit than others may not posses the tool necessary for them to survive. Rather, it is natural selection (which is defined as having traits that serve as a distinct advantage in a certain environment) that dictates our survival.

Also, difference in IQs don't really serve as an example for devolution. Every species will have defects, whether they are physical or mental. This includes humans.

 

By the theory of Darwin, then yes, we are devolving.

Regardless of the current civilization.

 

Put forth your evidence then. You're interrelating survival of the fittest (natural selection) and evolution. Which is simply not the case, as they are two different things altogether. I highly suggest you actually investigate the proper definitions for both.

 

If you want to go out and hunt game in the wilderness in a pack, be my guest.

Electricity is a fundamental force of nature that we've utilized to great ends.

You're completely misusing actual scientific terms to advance your own social agenda that we're too weak and feeble.

 

K.

I'm sure some of us are still capable, but the bulk of us would not be. Need I cite the obesity rate and how fat some people have become? Some people probably wouldn't be able to go for a 5km run, much less actively hunt for food. Your essentially saying that muscle has nothing to do with the physical feats man can achieve. This is untrue. A man with a great deal of muscle can move a heavy boulder in his path, a man who's piss weak may break his back trying to do so. A man that's extremely fit will be able to run away from danger, A man who's fat and slow will probably get eaten. As said previously, if you take the mean of both societies you would find that they would be more musculus , and more fit. I don't wish to say and hinge on the word 'capable' as man from now and man from them is 'capable yes of lifting that boulder, but the simple fact is men from now can't whereas most men from then can.

 

I think the people here that are saying we've "devolved" are looking at it all ignorantly and in a completely wrong way. We haven't devolved at all, we've simply began evolving in different areas and leaving behind those we no longer need. The world is no longer full of cave men, and never will be again. If you think that's somehow a possibility, you might as well stop posting here. Even if everything we currently have was utterly destroyed, it wouldn't matter. We'd simply rebuild until it was all the way it was before. Sure, a few may die, but the majority of the population would get along just fine for the short duration, especially when aided by others and their government's support.

So, like I said, we aren't devolving at all. We've simply began to evolve in different areas, the areas that are now best suited for the lifestyle we live. Humans are very good at adapting to the conditions they're dealt.

 

Men from back then could not lift a boulder without proper conditioning and I doubt most men from way back when could do that. We are still capable of doing such a feat with the proper conditioning. We haven't devolved it is just most people do not condition themselves for feats like that due to modern technology. Take a man from this era and properly condition him for lifting a boulder. He will be able to do it.

 

I never said man has 'devolved'. My point is that man nowaday is not conditioned, whereas man back then was conditioned, you yourself had already admitted that, or had not contended that. The fact is in the olden days you needed physical capabilities in order to function well in society.

We drive cars now, which need NO physical work aside from pushing the pedals. They rode horses, this requires physical work, even a simple canter. What about hunting and gathering food? Nowaday people sit in the office, and go home. Some scouts rode for hundreds of kilometers as a job, can you do that? I'm not saying whether we can, as in it is possible for us to do it, I'm taking about actuality where we can't do it. Sure, 99.9% of humans can bench 800 pounds, it's a possibility should they condition themselves to. In actual fact, they can't.

 

You're comparing some of the BEST barbarians to an average American, which is wrong. Now, compare the Mongols to say...a UFC fighter, in hand to hand combat, easily the UFC would come out on top. Compare the Mongols to a trained Marine in a weapons match, I'm sure the Marine would come out on top, as well. There's proof humans have become more physically stronger, and faster.

Just because they went out and hunt for their food doesn't mean they always got a full healthy meal. Whereas, nowadays, people CAN eat a full course, healthy meal. Actually, I'm willing to bet that some barbarians may have went to bed hungry at night with no luck hunting, which could be for several reasons 1) their hut got torn apart from last nights storm 2) sickness 3) relentless weather, and them are to just name a few.

 

The average Mongol was a warrior. Even still, answer me one question. Have we as a society become less physically dependent, as in, are we relying on our brute strength less to accomplish things?

Yes it does, do you know how precise their archery was? Also, the food we eat now is far from healthy. Some of it's genetically modified, most of it has chemicals sprayed all over it, we don't get natural food anymore. Also, sure, we can eat a healthy full course meal. I guess the obesity rate itself has something to say about that, though.

My point is that we as a society have become less physically dependent, and as a result, nowhere near as strong. Who here walks to school? I use to hear all my uncles, aunts walk to school. This exercises the muscles in your legs and keeps you fit; you become stronger. Nowaday, many kids get driven to school. In the olden days? Might I say that kids didn't sit around 6 hours a day, but instead they fought with each other to become future warriors for which, all of them were expected to be. How many battles do you know of in the ancient times compared to now? It's not comparable. Nowaday, a battles are rarely close quarter, and rarely EVER, if ever, at the magnitude that they use to be.

You list me all the well renowned battles of this generation, and I'll list you the well renowned battles of the past. I'll reiterate, the more you work your muscles, the stronger they will become. The less you work your muscles, the less strong you will be. We as a society don't work our muscles anymore, we're not even close to what was required in the past. The average job then was to be a soldier, the average job now is to sit on your arse.

 

I was curious whether this had any factual basis so I googled..
http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/december2009/12072009activity.htm

 

Are you asking, if all of our infrastructure was destroyed, and all of our technology rendered useless, would we be fucked? The answer is obviously yes. Such a scenario holds true for any civilization at any time period. However, we are certainly more stable as a civilization than 500 years ago. I don't see 1/3 of europe dying from the black plague anytime soon.

 

We have not devolved we have simply adapted to different surroundings. Back then our surroundings basically was the wilderness, so we could survive there, now our surroundings are electricity and city based, so we survive there.

Edit: Also, we do have basic instincts still, so im sure if we were thrown into the wilderness most people would be able to survive.

 

I'm not sure whether this study proposes a mere correlation, or a causation.

The Tarahumara people are very very fit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara_people Yet, I doubt they would be rather successful in our standards of success, that being a good job.

Perhaps being fit requires determiniation and persistence, for example you need to attend trainings, go to the gym, run regularly. In turn this determination and persistence carries over to studying and University, and produces a good work-ethic. I'm by no means saying this is true, however, it's a possibility as this study seems to hint more of a correlation as opposed to causation.

Problems I find with this data is that it is that the data-set is entirely from Sweden. Another problem is the year in which the data-set was drawn. Humans have advanced a great deal since then, and I'm fairly confident that more physical activity was required then as opposed to now.

Nonetheless, I take your point.

 

wtf is devolve?

evolution is adapting to the environment, there is no getting better or worse...there is no start and finish

i dont understand what de-volve is...